Sunday, 4 November 2012

INNOCENCE OF GANGSTAPIMPS



His Excellency
Ghulam Ahmed Bilour
Federal Minister of Railways of the Gangstapimp Republic of Porkistan
Stalingrad

Dear Minister:

Last night I had a strange dream about you. In this dream I chopped up your testicles, sautéed them with a little garlic and fed them to my cat Rostropovich with sauce tartare. (Rostropovich found your testicles delicious). But on awaking I realised it was an impossible dream, for last year some rascally scallywags made off with my special kukri for castrating hyenas, together with my copy of the Holy Qur’ân specially dedicated to me by the celebrated stunt pilot Mohammed Atta, as well as my entire collection of Donald Duck comic books (you see, I learned English so I could read Donald Duck in the original). Those particular scallywags seem to enjoy  reading cheap fiction, by the way.

I was intrigued by your recent venture into the terror finance business. It's certainly a most original way to start a career as a film critic. Cheap, too, because you’re never going to have to part with your loot.

I saw bits of the film, too, and I certainly agree that it was in shockingly bad taste. But on the other hand the script was purportedly based on the first and presumably most accurate biography of the film’s principal character, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)2, to whose historical figure you seem extraordinarily attached. This bio was written by one Ibn Ishaq a little over a century after its subject’s tragic demise. You can read it online in English at www.faithfreedom.org/Library. It’s  called
   سيرة رسول الله    or Sirat Rasoul Allah)

I fully agree with you that the scenes of cruelty and lechery were indeed most distasteful. However I think the primary criterion for evaluating biographical motion pictures is whether or not they are accurate portrayals of the events they claim to narrate. Because if a biographical motion picture devoted to the life and times of a certain Prophet or other bigwig is both disgusting AND accurate, that would seem strongly to suggest that it was the Prophet or other bigwig in question who was disgusting, and our ire should hence be rightfully directed not at the individual who produced and/or directed the film, but instead at the Prophet or other bigwig to whose life and times aforesaid biographical motion picture is devoted, which in this case would be none other than the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)2.

In other words you can't make a silken purse from a sow’s ear. My advice is, if you are a fan of individuals of marked criminal, psychopathic or sadistic proclivities, such as Al Capone, Ivan the Terrible, Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Jack the Ripper or Mao Zedong, you should boycott outright all biographical motion pictures dealing with the life and times of said miscreants, in order to spare your delicate digestive system. Capeesh?
On the other hand, if you find that the film’s portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)2 was inaccurate, then the proper thing to do in civilised society (q.v.) is to refute the inaccurate allegations by producing persuasive evidence (preferably of a documentary nature) to the effect that the allegations at issue are false, or at least implausible. This sort of activity is known as “civilised discussion". Whole books have been written about it.

In this context, it is passing strange that not a single one of your hundreds of fellow-lambasters of this distasteful film has ever even broached the issue of whether what is shown in the film REALLY HAPPENED OR NOT.

Consequently it seems that truth, i.e. the real facts of the matter,  is not an issue that concerns Muslims greatly. You're more focused on the concept of respect, i.e. personal status, Furthermore, in Mohammedan societies personal status is often attained by means of violence, for example by killing people.

You yourself, my dear Minister, have chosen to gain social status, not by killing people in person, but by paying someone else to kill on your behalf.

On these points (except for hiring assassins) the Muslim value system strongly resembles the chimpanzee value system, as can be seen in the following table.


  

Mohammedans vs Chimpanzees[1]




SOCIAL GROUP
Mohammedans
Chimpanzees

Not interested in facts
x
x
TRAIT
Obsessive about respect
x
x

Very prone to violence
x
x

Table 1: Comparison of some social traits of Mohammedans and Chimpanzees[2]

Now I am not disputing that you have every right to respect scumbags, or Schweinehunde, to use the timeless German expression.  I have known people who displayed inordinately flattering opinions of Joseph Stalin, for example, the celebrated Communist butcher, and of other assorted criminals.

However people who respect and admire degenerate dirtbags like Al Capone, Ivan the Terrible, Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler or Jack the Ripper, and their ilk (I’m not sure about Mao Zedong) seldom threaten to murder those who find fault with their respective idols. I think this is because aforesaid degenerate dirtbags have been unable to accumulate enough devoted fans to really scare the shit out of their critics, and accordingly murder threats are unlikely to be effective in shutting those critics up.

But the situation is radically different in the case of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)2. This worthy has amassed a populous fan club, each of whose members is fiercely devoted to his cause, and furthermore committed to imitate him in all things, especially when it comes to murdering people, an art at which the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)2 appears to have excelled, to judge by aforesaid bio.[3]  

The great number of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)2 ’s fans  is often interpreted to mean that his teachings were somehow beneficial.  I, on the other hand, believe that we have a perfect analogy in the fact that millions of flies love shit. 

I expect your reply with great anticipation,

Yours sincerely, Igor Slamoff





[1]  My sources are: Richard W. Wrangham: Collective Violence: Comparisons between Youths and Chimpanzees, and several books about chimpanzee behavior by Frans de Waal, Byrne & Whiten 1988, Goodall. 1971, 1986. I will just cite some suggestive passages, without attempting any rigorous analysis.  "One male chimpanzee that was injured in a fight with his rival limped for a week afterward but only when his rival could see him.” “A subordinate male chimpanzee conceals his erect penis when trying to approach a female without attracting the notice of the dominant male who is almost certain to attack if he sees what is going on.” “Chimpanzees do pay respect to each other in all sorts of ways. for instance, bowing to a dominant animal, but once this animal has lost out in the power game, this behaviour stops instantly.” “The concepts that sociologists use to account for collective violence in youth gangs are somewhat similar to those applied by anthropologists and biologists to chimpanzees. Participation (in human youth gangs) predominantly by males, an intense personal and group concern with status, … defense of group integrity, inter-group fights that include surprise attacks, and a tendency to avoid mass confrontation.  Males are highly motivated to gain personal status, which they do by physical violence. The use of physical violence to resolve individual status competition is an important predictor of collective violence at the gang level. Among chimpanzees the use of physical violence to settle status competition is universal (in the wild and captivity)”
[2] 
[3] The part I like best is in chapter 20 “Khaybar”, which unfortunately wasn't shown in the film. Kinana, Mohammeds  captive, obstinately refuses to disclose the location of a buried treasure. Ibn Ishaq wrote: “The apostle of Allah handed him [i.e. Kinana] over to al Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until he tells what he knows', and al Zubayr kindled a fire on his chest so that he almost expired; then the apostle gave him to Muhammad b. Maslama, who struck off his head.” Yessirree, your man Mohammed was strictly business. No Hamlet-like self-doubts or hanky-panky of any sort.

No comments:

Post a Comment